Hhhmm I think a bit of both. Dave you are right, but I'd also add that those who are now priced out of Sydney/Melbourne (because their 10% deposit savings won't cut it in these cities at a 20% minimum ruling, now), will take that same deposit and play in markets where the same amount can make up a 20% deposit (I.e. more affordable markets with good fundamentals).

On another note, I reckon the LMI companies (E.g. Genworth etc.) must be sweating buckets. Much of that easy money there were getting from the countless sub-20%-deposit loans will likely dry up for them now, as investors simply can't just buy or capitalise that LMI for their previously sub-20% deposit loans. A win for investors, IMHO!

Dont know what the market will do per se, but 80 ish will be the new black with odd exception until APRA applies a brake to its brakes, or lending growth slows to an "acceptable" level, due to real economic factors

Its NORMAL for the remaining lenders to attract business they dont really want. Many lenders will use a LVR cap to reduce growth if they are forced to

As the main volume providers get pushed over, the smaller lenders will get most of that growth.............. sure they can price Investment loans to a level that will slow things a little but I can only see "bankwestish" outcomes.

When the balance of the market moves into a lower risk profile position, those with the higher risk profile will attract that business and will be a victim of their own growth

FHB investors (the new breed) - now need 20% + costs. Say $350k just to break into the unit market. Now need at least $70k cash.. Forget about it. They will probably elect to buy PPOR instead.

In a slow growth area, new investors need a lot more capital growth to buy further properties. Say they bought their PPOR 5 years ago for $500k with $450k loan. Paid off $50k. Property now worth $608k (@4% growth p/a in slow area, e.g. brisbane). $400k loan remaining. Now have $86k to invest. Can only now buy up to $400k property at max 80% LVR. Previously this would buy circa $600k @ 90%

Is it possible to take out a loan with 90% LVR and saying to the bank that the loan is for PPOR but than using it as an investment property after you’ve had the loan approved, contract settled etc. and saying ‘your circumstances changed’. Does that have tax implications or is there a possibility that the bank would just repossess the house for misleading them?

80% lend on IPLs is favoured towards more established investors IMO - more equity you have more you can cross against the new property

Be careful re taking out a PPOR loan and then using the property secured as an IP - in the T&C's of the loan contract there may be a clause stating that the bank can either repossess the property or force you to pay back the loan within an immediate timeframe (you probably will need to sell unless you win the lotto!)

In saying this though its not feasible to enforce this for every single property - have seen cases where customers have either demolished the property entirely so the loan is secured against vacant land (negative equity) and other cases where they have demolished the residential property and built a commercial property on the land......

Are there any legal or taxation ramifications that would arise from that?

Click to expand...

Legally the loan docs say you need to inform the lender of any change to your circumstances. The lender is unlikely to repossess. Perhaps the lender might increase your rate if they had different pricing for investors.

The reverse, deciding to live in an investment property, was a fairly common scenario for a number of fhbs and some thought that it affected apras figures on reported investment lending.

I don't think an 80% max LVR is any sort of disincentive to investors. In fact, I've never borrowed on an LVR greater than 80% myself anyway. And, as investors, they've likely got equity elsewhere they can extract via LOC for the 20% then borrow the balance. So, effectively an 100% loan scenario despite nominally 80% LVR secured by the new purchase.

That is what I'm considering doing next. My new PPOR in Brisbane just valued circa $1M (or a bit more). We have loans on it of $300K. I was going to go to my personal banker at WBC and top that up to 80% LVR and get another $500K as LOC secured by my PPOR.

As 20% deposits, $500K allows me to purchase another $2.5M in total properties at 80% LVR!

Of course, this is only the LVR hurdle which is all this thread is about. Servicability is a different matter. I think if the banks want to curb lending they should lift the servicability hurdle, not the LVR hurdle. Force all loans to be assessed at an 8% interest rate and see how they stack up...

Featured Business Members

Property Investing is a game of finance. Learn how to play and you’re far more likely to win! In this FREE E-book, discover the finance secrets to double your borrowing power and grow a more successful investment portfolio.

Not all insurance is the same. Whether loss of rent due to a defaulting tenant, malicious or accidental damage or circumstances including tenant hardship and death of a tenant, EBM's RentCover insurance protects owners like no other policy.

Are you looking to build a property portfolio? If so, are you looking for guidance and someone to hand hold you through the process? Hi, I am Sana Ali from Property Twins. I help people set up with finance correctly to build their property portfolio.